Perceptual grouping induces non-retinotopic feature attribution in human vision

Öğmen, Haluk; Otto, T.; Herzog, Michael H.

doi:10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.007

Cited by 68 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, features presented at one retinotopic location are attributed to another one. These non-retinotopic attributions are not errors of the visual system but rather reflect systematic visual processing that maintains the identity of perceptual objects across space and time (Otto et al, 2009) and follows the rules of perceptual grouping (Aydin et al, 2008(Aydin et al, , 2009Öğmen et al, 2006;Otto et al, 2009). Similar non-retinotopic effects have been demonstrated for luminance (Shimozaki et al, 1999), color Watanabe and Nishida, 2007), shape Otto et al, 2006), size (Kawabe, 2008), and the conjunction of features (Cavanagh et al, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Non-retinotopic feature integration decreases response-locked brain activity as revealed by electrical neuroimaging

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When presented with dynamic scenes, the brain integrates visual elements across space and time. Such nonretinotopic processing has been intensively studied from a psychophysical point of view, but little is known about the underlying neural processes. Here we used high-density EEG to reveal neural correlates of nonretinotopic feature integration. In an offset-discrimination task we presented sequences of lines for which feature integration depended on a small, endogenous shift of attention. Attention effects were observed in the stimulus-locked evoked potentials but non-retinotopic feature integration was reflected in voltage topographies time-locked to the behavioral response, lasting for about 400 ms. Statistical parametric mapping of estimated current densities revealed that this integration reduced electrical activity in an extensive network of brain areas, with the effects progressing from high-level visual, via frontal, to central ones. The results suggest that endogenously timed neural processes, rather than bottom-up ones, underlie non-retinotopic feature integration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Non-retinotopic feature integration decreases response-locked brain activity as revealed by electrical neuroimaging

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The method that we have proposed for exploring nonretinotopic processing is based on the Ternus-Pikler paradigm (Öğmen, Otto, & Herzog, 2006;Boi, Ogmen, Krummenacher, Otto, & Herzog, 2009). The Ternus-Pikler display is an apparent motion stimulus, introduced by Gestalt psychologists about a century ago, and employed extensively since then to study the spatio-temporal aspects of human vision (Petersik & Rice, 2006;Pikler, 1917;Ternus, 1926).…”

Section: Retinotopy Of Visual Masking In the Absence Of Eye Movementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinotopy of visual masking and non-retinotopic perception during masking

Noory

Herzog

Öğmen

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the movements of the observer and those of objects in the environment, retinotopic representations are highly unstable during ecological viewing conditions. The phenomenal stability of our perception suggests that retinotopic representations are transformed into nonretinotopic representations. It remains to show, however, which visual processes operate under retinotopic representations and which ones operate under non-retinotopic representations. Visual masking refers to the reduced visibility of one stimulus, called the target, due to the presence of a second stimulus, called the mask. Masking has been used extensively to study the dynamic aspects of visual perception. Previous studies using Saccadic Stimulus Presentation Paradigm (SSPP) suggested both retinotopic and non-retinotopic bases for visual masking. In order to understand how the visual system deals with retinotopic changes induced by moving targets, we investigated the retinotopy of visual masking and the fate of masked targets under conditions that do not involve eye movements. We have developed a series of experiments based on a radial Ternus-Pikler display. In this paradigm, the perceived Ternus-Pikler motion is used as a non-retinotopic reference frame to pit retinotopic against non-retinotopic visual masking hypothesis. Our results indicate that both metacontrast and structure masking are retinotopic. We also show that, under conditions that allow observers to read-out effectively non-retinotopic feature attribution, the target becomes visible at a destination different from its retinotopic/ spatiotopic location. We discuss the implications of our findings within the context of ecological vision and dynamic form perception.

show abstract

“…3, a first stage of processing groups motion information and extracts reference frames that are used to compute the attributes of the moving objects. The use of nonretinotopic, motion-based reference frames has been supported by several studies (Agaoglu et al, 2012;Boi et al, 2009;Hisakata, Terao, & Murakami, 2013;Kawabe, 2008;Nishida, Watanabe, Kuriki, & Tokimoto, 2007;Öğmen, Otto, & Herzog, 2006;Yamada & Kawabe, 2013). On the basis of our results, we can summarize the reference-frame rules as follows: First, individual motion vectors are grouped according to their similarities (law of common fate).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…The RFMF theory differs from these approaches by putting perceptual-grouping operations as an essential component of reference-frame extraction; in this context, the nonlinearity in the antagonistic interactions in Experiment 3b can be explained as an effect of perceptual grouping. Moreover, most theories of vision, including the aforementioned approaches to motion perception, are based on retinotopic representations, although mounting evidence is showing that perception is highly nonretinotopic (Agaoglu et al, 2012;Boi et al, 2009;Hisakata et al, 2013;Kawabe, 2008;Nishida et al, 2007;Öğmen et al, 2006;Shimozaki, Eckstein, & Thomas, 1999;Yamada & Kawabe, 2013). Hence, a fundamental gap exists between retinotopic theories and the nonretinotopic percepts that these theories attempt to explain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Aga-Oglu

Herzog

Öğmen

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reference frame is required to specify how motion is perceived. For example, the motion of part of an object is usually perceived relative to the motion of the object itself. Johansson (Psychological Research, 38, 379-393, 1976) proposed that the perceptual system carries out a vector decomposition, which rewsults in common and relative motion percepts. Because vector decomposition is an ill-posed problem, several studies have introduced constraints by means of which the number of solutions can be substantially reduced. Here, we have adopted an alternative approach and studied how, rather than why, a subset of solutions is selected by the visual system. We propose that each retinotopic motion vector creates a reference-frame field in the retinotopic space, and that the fields created by different motion vectors interact in order to determine a motion vector that will serve as the reference frame at a given point and time in space. To test this theory, we performed a set of psychophysical experiments. The field-like influence of motion-based reference frames was manifested by increased nonspatiotopic percepts of the backward motion of a target square with decreasing distance from a drifting grating. We then sought to determine whether these fieldlike effects of motion-based reference frames can also be extended to stationary landmarks. The results suggest that reference-field interactions occur only between motiongenerated fields. Finally, we investigated whether and how different reference fields interact with each other, and found that different reference-field interactions are nonlinear and depend on how the motion vectors are grouped. These findings are discussed from the perspective of the reference-frame metric field (RFMF) theory, according to which perceptual grouping operations play a central and essential role in determining the prevailing reference frames.

show abstract

Perceptual grouping induces non-retinotopic feature attribution in human vision

Cited by 68 publications

References 35 publications

Non-retinotopic feature integration decreases response-locked brain activity as revealed by electrical neuroimaging

Non-retinotopic feature integration decreases response-locked brain activity as revealed by electrical neuroimaging

Retinotopy of visual masking and non-retinotopic perception during masking

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About